ChatterBank4 mins ago
A Warning...
120 Answers
....to walking stick users......
If you are in a crowded foyer and leaning heavily on your walking stick it's a good idea to keep the stick perpendicular and close to your body ......... .......otherwise .....
Gness will trip over it, sending you and your glass of wine flying into the arms of the man you were talking to........and herself headfirst onto a table of full coffee cups and cream cakes......☺
If you are in a crowded foyer and leaning heavily on your walking stick it's a good idea to keep the stick perpendicular and close to your body ......... .......otherwise .....
Gness will trip over it, sending you and your glass of wine flying into the arms of the man you were talking to........and herself headfirst onto a table of full coffee cups and cream cakes......☺
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gness. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Gness clause is explained by the following...
// Penalty or liquidated damages?
For a liquidated damages clause in Ireland to be valid the specified sum must be a genuine pre-estimate of the anticipated loss of alcohol beit Guinness, Murphy's or Jamiesons or any other poteen which the claimant would be likely to suffer in the event of a breach of the obligation in question.
If the loss is difficult to quantify a "best gness" procedure should be operated, the basis of this being if Gness was present and to cause damage what would be that damage and costs incurred. It should necessitate the keeping a record of the calculations underlying any elements of the determined figure.
Provided the selected figure is not vastly in excess of the greatest loss which could be suffered by the Gness effect, the clause is likely to be enforceable.
The essence of a penalty is that the money specified is 'in terrorem' (Irish for fear of Gness) of the defaulting party, in other words, it is intended to apply undue force to the other party to perform his side of the contract.
The use of the words "penalty" or "liquidated damages" are not conclusive. It is necessary to examine whether the amount specified is in fact a penalty or liquidated damages. It is for the party in breach to show that the sum is a penalty (Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 3 All ER 128).
The leading case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres versus Gnesss establishes the tests to distinguish penalties from liquidated damages: - et al.....
// Penalty or liquidated damages?
For a liquidated damages clause in Ireland to be valid the specified sum must be a genuine pre-estimate of the anticipated loss of alcohol beit Guinness, Murphy's or Jamiesons or any other poteen which the claimant would be likely to suffer in the event of a breach of the obligation in question.
If the loss is difficult to quantify a "best gness" procedure should be operated, the basis of this being if Gness was present and to cause damage what would be that damage and costs incurred. It should necessitate the keeping a record of the calculations underlying any elements of the determined figure.
Provided the selected figure is not vastly in excess of the greatest loss which could be suffered by the Gness effect, the clause is likely to be enforceable.
The essence of a penalty is that the money specified is 'in terrorem' (Irish for fear of Gness) of the defaulting party, in other words, it is intended to apply undue force to the other party to perform his side of the contract.
The use of the words "penalty" or "liquidated damages" are not conclusive. It is necessary to examine whether the amount specified is in fact a penalty or liquidated damages. It is for the party in breach to show that the sum is a penalty (Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 3 All ER 128).
The leading case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres versus Gnesss establishes the tests to distinguish penalties from liquidated damages: - et al.....
Yes tone, no definition about the colour of the fur and that may be very important as in Gness versus Fur Wearers of Teddington, Western Courts, 16.76
The glamorous 2014 campaign marked a shift for the lobby group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Handcuffed Animals (Petha), away from direct action attacks such as throwing paint at handcuff wearers towards playing the industry at its own game by making ethical fashion on AB cool.
With that, here endeth the legal crap and night all.
The glamorous 2014 campaign marked a shift for the lobby group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Handcuffed Animals (Petha), away from direct action attacks such as throwing paint at handcuff wearers towards playing the industry at its own game by making ethical fashion on AB cool.
With that, here endeth the legal crap and night all.
